Author
Topic: Orthodoxy on sexuality... (Read 23801 times)

Hi, I'm new here. I'm also a Catholic, and I think I may be on my way East. However, i do have some questions on Orthodoxy's views on sex. I could describe my views on sex as "puritanical". I don't believe that sex is evil when conception is likely between a married couple, but in any other case I see it as sinful I have been told by some Catholics that I'm far too conservative. What does the East have to say?

Logged

"The life of a Christian is nothing but a perpetual struggle against self; there is no flowering of the soul to the beauty of its perfection except at the price of pain." - Padre Pio

I would emphasize, bases on things that I saw there, that any presumption that marriage means sex 24/7 has no idea of marriage.

Sex, or rather making love, is an important part however. It is compared to the link of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, the unity of the Persons in One nature.

You have to see things in that context.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2007, 05:24:34 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Patriarch Noah I, peace be with you. Your views would probably be considered a 'pious belief'. In other words there is nothing wrong with holding such views so long as you don't try to force them on others whose spiritual strength isn't up to such a standard. Also, if your beliefs cause you to think that you are superior to other people then you have just fallen into the sin of pride. However if you hold these views without thinking any less of other people but rather humbly reflect upon your own sins and weaknesses then your potential Orthodox priest may be willing to baptise you while suffering you to retain your current belief. Pray for me please.

Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime....because I am blind and yet I see.

I am not a clergyman or theologian, so I might be way off-base, but from what I read, I do not believe that there exists one single Orthodox view on sex and sexuality. Of course, all forms of sexual lust - when one person savors sexual pleasure and uses other persons merely to satisfy his/her bodily needs - is condemned. Intimate relationships between a man and a woman are possible only in marriage, which the Church sees not as a venue to satisfy one's bodily needs but as a lifelong commitment and, morever, a form of martyrdom (self-sacrificial witnessing of the Christian Truth, complete giving of one's self to aid the other partner's theosis).

As for whether sex in marriage, per se, is a holy thing or a "bestial" thing, opinions differ. St. Gregory of Nyssa used to theorize a lot about pre-lapsarian humans having a "thin," etherial flesh and not having any sexual desires as we now know them. He believed that the commandment to Adam and Eve to be "fruitful and multiply" did not actually mean the commandment to beget children the way we do it now. He viewed sex as something always bestial, even in marriage, something that we acquired against God's will as a result of our lapse into sin. On the other hand, St. John Chrysostom ridiculed and criticized some older women from his congregation for their fancied notion that if they abstain from any sex with their husbands, they thus become holier. In present-day Orthodox catechisms, particularly in Clark Carlton's (the one I personally used when I was a catechumen), marital sex is viewed very positively, and there is a very strong emphasis that it is not merely a means of procreation.

I hope other people who are more knowledgeable will give you a more thorough response and references.

Patriarch Noah I, peace be with you. Your views would probably be considered a 'pious belief'. In other words there is nothing wrong with holding such views so long as you don't try to force them on others whose spiritual strength isn't up to such a standard. Also, if your beliefs cause you to think that you are superior to other people then you have just fallen into the sin of pride. However if you hold these views without thinking any less of other people but rather humbly reflect upon your own sins and weaknesses then your potential Orthodox priest may be willing to baptise you while suffering you to retain your current belief. Pray for me please.

But what I'm wondering is, does God hold everyone else up to the same standard as I believe He does?

« Last Edit: November 13, 2007, 08:15:13 PM by Patriarch Noah I »

Logged

"The life of a Christian is nothing but a perpetual struggle against self; there is no flowering of the soul to the beauty of its perfection except at the price of pain." - Padre Pio

In that case the answer to your previous question is no. St. John Chrysostom in his treatise 'On Virginity' specifically said that there were enough people in the world, the command 'be fruitful and mulitply' came from a time when there were very few people (at least thought to be) on the planet and by the time of Chrysostom the argument was considered moot by said father. Chrysostom prefered the explination of Paul as the only legitimate reason for sex, 'I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.' That is to say, sex is to stop the burning and the overcomming of passions, and this is the reason that marriage is allowed, not for the purpose of procreation.

Now sure, you may be able to find others who say different thing, I'm guessing mostly in the west, but I would find it hard to see how someone could fancy themselves a 'traditionalist' and disregard the theology of Paul and Chrysostom on a matter.

Hi, I'm new here. I'm also a Catholic, and I think I may be on my way East. However, i do have some questions on Orthodoxy's views on sex. I could describe my views on sex as "puritanical". I don't believe that sex is evil when conception is likely between a married couple, but in any other case I see it as sinful I have been told by some Catholics that I'm far too conservative. What does the East have to say?

At the risk of being indelicate ... Are you saying that all sexual relations between a husband and his wife are sinful if there is no possibility for conception? Such as if either the husband or wife are sterile? Or after the wife has gone through menopause?

I do not believe you will find any teaching in the tradition of either Church that supports that assertion. Though I may be wrong. The Catholic perspective is that sex between a husband and a wife has more than one purpose. One, of course, being procreative. One being unitive. And one being the avoidance of concupience (the better to marry than to burn referenced earlier). None of these purposes exist in a vacuum apart from the others. Thus the idea that sex between husband and wife is sinful if procreation is not possible would seem to be unsupported.

The Catholic perspective is that sex between a husband and a wife has more than one purpose. One, of course, being procreative. One being unitive.

Hi Carole,

As I have already mentioned (and you might remember that), I was blasted for this "unitive" by some Catholics on the Ukrainian site "Maidan." They say that it's a total perversion of the Fathers. According to their reading of patristic sources, only a pure, spititual life of the couple in marriage was viewed as unitive. Copulation was unanimously viewed by Fathers as if not exactly "unlawful" (in marriage), but at the very least as something low, aboninable, kind of like defecation . There is never any holiness in that. I tried to argue but never succeeded, because my opponent quoted dozens over dozens of passages from St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem and other, and all I could do in return is to quote... well, Hemingway. It really does look like the idea that sex in marriage is a holy, noble thing because it strengthens the union between the members of a couple comes entirely from our secular culture and not from patristics...

In that case the answer to your previous question is no. St. John Chrysostom in his treatise 'On Virginity' specifically said that there were enough people in the world, the command 'be fruitful and mulitply' came from a time when there were very few people (at least thought to be) on the planet and by the time of Chrysostom the argument was considered moot by said father. Chrysostom prefered the explination of Paul as the only legitimate reason for sex, 'I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.' That is to say, sex is to stop the burning and the overcomming of passions, and this is the reason that marriage is allowed, not for the purpose of procreation.

Now sure, you may be able to find others who say different thing, I'm guessing mostly in the west, but I would find it hard to see how someone could fancy themselves a 'traditionalist' and disregard the theology of Paul and Chrysostom on a matter.

Chrysostom repeats this in his commentaries on the Epistles. Glad you brought it up.

Patriarch Noah I, peace be with you. Your views would probably be considered a 'pious belief'. In other words there is nothing wrong with holding such views so long as you don't try to force them on others whose spiritual strength isn't up to such a standard. Also, if your beliefs cause you to think that you are superior to other people then you have just fallen into the sin of pride. However if you hold these views without thinking any less of other people but rather humbly reflect upon your own sins and weaknesses then your potential Orthodox priest may be willing to baptise you while suffering you to retain your current belief. Pray for me please.

Excellent post, Didymus.

I've not done as much reading on the Fathers as some other people here, but from all I've gathered, it would seem that sex is indeed a gift that is given once two people are married. Whether they choose to keep it to strictly procreation or continue post menopause, I refer you to the quoted post for my opinion.

Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."

As I have already mentioned (and you might remember that), I was blasted for this "unitive" by some Catholics on the Ukrainian site "Maidan." They say that it's a total perversion of the Fathers. According to their reading of patristic sources, only a pure, spititual life of the couple in marriage was viewed as unitive. Copulation was unanimously viewed by Fathers as if not exactly "unlawful" (in marriage), but at the very least as something low, aboninable, kind of like defecation . There is never any holiness in that. I tried to argue but never succeeded, because my opponent quoted dozens over dozens of passages from St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem and other, and all I could do in return is to quote... well, Hemingway. It really does look like the idea that sex in marriage is a holy, noble thing because it strengthens the union between the members of a couple comes entirely from our secular culture and not from patristics...

From the master himself:Saint John Chrysostom. On Marriage and Family Life. Translator David Anderson Translator Catharine RothFormat: Paperback: 114 pages.Publisher: St Vladimirs Seminary Pr (03/01/1997)ISBN: 0913836869ISBN13: 9780913836866List price: $9.95I would advise you to buy these 2 books.

Then of course there is this standard book:John Meyendorff.

Quote

Marriage: An Orthodox perspective.

Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1975.

Also just in passing, I remember my professors and priest saying, that Catholic translators had the tendency to translate chastity in the original Greek as virginity in English, so beware.

I believe all you can do is modify your post to delete all its contents, and then only within 24 hours or less after you posted it. Only a moderator can remove the post entirely, but I wanted to make sure you were OK with what I wanted to do so you didn't think I was acting in a heavyhanded way.

As I have already mentioned (and you might remember that), I was blasted for this "unitive" by some Catholics on the Ukrainian site "Maidan." They say that it's a total perversion of the Fathers. According to their reading of patristic sources, only a pure, spititual life of the couple in marriage was viewed as unitive. Copulation was unanimously viewed by Fathers as if not exactly "unlawful" (in marriage), but at the very least as something low, aboninable, kind of like defecation . There is never any holiness in that. I tried to argue but never succeeded, because my opponent quoted dozens over dozens of passages from St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem and other, and all I could do in return is to quote... well, Hemingway. It really does look like the idea that sex in marriage is a holy, noble thing because it strengthens the union between the members of a couple comes entirely from our secular culture and not from patristics...

Yeah, that's Fathers, and St. Paul.

And that's again, it seems, our modern culture.

I wish you were correct. Sorry for playing the devil's advocate.

Just a couple of things:

Yes, a lot of the Fathers say a lot of things that remind me of what a lot of monks today say/write about marriage. When one such monk stated "besides the wedding service, there is no service of the Church that praises marriage [as if that weren't enough]." I replied, "Yes, like the hymn we sing at Pascha where Christ 'comes forth from the tomb like a monk from his monastic cell.'" When does a bridegroom come from his bridal chamber? And what has he done.....?

Marriage, not monastic profession, is counted among the Seven Sacraments/Holy Mysteries (yes, I know the number Seven is late and artificial, but yet the Church settled on it nonetheless). Yes, there are those who try to get around this, following Abelard who said it was the only Sacrament that did not give grace (!), in particular talking about the "spiritual union" as the unitive part of a marriage. (It's interesting how they deny the gnostic implications of this) Listen to the marriage service, and the numerous references to betting children. That doesn't happen from "spiritual union" (thought that should be there too). Btw, Liturgy trumps Patristics.

In Genesis God always end a days work of creation saying it is "good." He changes only when He says "It is not good for man to be alone (monos, >monakhos "monk"), the verse which become the leitmotif in the EO marriage service. Where does Eve come from? The flesh of Adam's side. What does Adam say? "Flesh of my Flesh." What does Genesis conclude? The two become "one flesh." What does Christ conclude? "What God has joined let no man put asunder."

So instead instead of the battle of the patristic quotes, looking at the trees, look at the above forest.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I believe all you can do is modify your post to delete all its contents, and then only within 24 hours or less after you posted it. Only a moderator can remove the post entirely, but I wanted to make sure you were OK with what I wanted to do so you didn't think I was acting in a heavyhanded way.

You can only modify your post within 10 or 15 minutes, not a day. I don't know if you can delete in that period of time.

I couldn't agree more. Yet, I hear every now and then that if you disregard opinions of the holy Fathers of the Church, you aren't really Orthodox. That saddens me tremendously.

Dear Heorhij,I think we Orthodox have to be careful not to become legalistic. God gave us a mind to use.I remember a learned professor saying that we Orthodox approach theology by first going to the scriptures, secondly to our liturgy (because as Jaroslav Pelikan states we sung our theology before it was formalized by Ecumenical Councils) and thirdly to tradition.We do not do battle with verses from different Church fathers instead of swords. Some of the isolated quotes from different church fathers do not jive with the whole picture: scripture, liturgy and tradition. But we always have to look at the whole picture.

I would not be bothered by this whole question, you know... It's just that every once in a while, I hear, or feel, this hatred to everything "fleshly," material, corporeal, and this very strong anti-sexual, anti-erotic stance. In short, according to the people who have this stance, holiness, things sacred cannot be, allegedly, associated with anything material, and least of all with anything that triggers erotic sensations. Only immaterial, only "pure spirit," only complete silencing of all passions and even emotions, only stillness, only hesichasm. And when I say to these people what you said above, they reply something like, "of course, what else can you say... being as filled with all this bodily FILTH from inside as you are... you better repent and agree with us - and with the Fathers - that there is nothing holy in this material world, in this stinking hurting rottening dying BODY, and especially in this SEX..."

I would not be bothered by this whole question, you know... It's just that every once in a while, I hear, or feel, this hatred to everything "fleshly," material, corporeal, and this very strong anti-sexual, anti-erotic stance. In short, according to the people who have this stance, holiness, things sacred cannot be, allegedly, associated with anything material, and least of all with anything that triggers erotic sensations. Only immaterial, only "pure spirit," only complete silencing of all passions and even emotions, only stillness, only hesichasm. And when I say to these people what you said above, they reply something like, "of course, what else can you say... being as filled with all this bodily FILTH from inside as you are... you better repent and agree with us - and with the Fathers - that there is nothing holy in this material world, in this stinking hurting rottening dying BODY, and especially in this SEX..."

Well, I can only speak from my point of view. While I am definately not gnostic, I am vary skeptical of those who praise everything sexual when it is between husband and wife. According to these people, oral and anal are all right as long as they culminate in the vagina. I say that is a perversion of said organs, and then I ask why it has to culminate in the vagina, if both are enjoying themselves, than it is unative, no? Then I get a blank stare, and I usually mutter something to myself about moving to a desert somewhere...

« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 06:17:56 PM by Patriarch Noah I »

Logged

"The life of a Christian is nothing but a perpetual struggle against self; there is no flowering of the soul to the beauty of its perfection except at the price of pain." - Padre Pio

Not really a question of logic, but of application to Orthodoxy. Appears more as idle speculation, frankly - the flip side of the Muslim 'anything and everything is OK, except copulation before marriage'. But then, I'm probably on your side as I do not agree with orest.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Well, I can only speak from my point of view. While I am definately not gnostic, I am vary skeptical of those who praise everything sexual when it is between husband and wife. According to these people, oral and anal are all right as long as they culminate in the vagina. I say that is a perversion of said organs, and then I ask why it has to culminate in the vagina, if both are enjoying themselves, than it is unative, no? Then I get a blank stare, and I usually mutter something to myself about moving to a desert somewhere...

I was not even thinking, actually, about "oral and anal." I don't want to peak into other married couples' lives, I don't want to "analyze" or "dissect" those things. And these "nuances" did not, actually, even feature in my discussions with those "Patristics-inspired" haters of sex. Their point was not about "what" is "OK" - it was simply, anything sexual, bodily, material is NOT HOLY, low, bestial, of cattle, stinking, rotten, filthy.

Well, I can only speak from my point of view. While I am definately not gnostic, I am vary skeptical of those who praise everything sexual when it is between husband and wife. According to these people, oral and anal are all right as long as they culminate in the vagina. I say that is a perversion of said organs, and then I ask why it has to culminate in the vagina, if both are enjoying themselves, than it is unative, no? Then I get a blank stare, and I usually mutter something to myself about moving to a desert somewhere...

And the vaginal intercourse aspect of the whole thing is so important why? I really do enjoy these sexuality threads, granted the discussions are nearly always far beyond the realm of completely absurd, but it's like reading the flat earth society's website, you read something, you laugh, thinking it has to be parody, then you realize it isn't, you're scared for a second, then you realize, 'oh, wait, these people represent one hundredth of one percent of the population, let's just sit back and laugh at it.'

However, in this particular case, I still must confess that I'm not entirely certain...are you serious our just messing with us?

And the vaginal intercourse aspect of the whole thing is so important why? I really do enjoy these sexuality threads, granted the discussions are nearly always far beyond the realm of completely absurd, but it's like reading the flat earth society's website, you read something, you laugh, thinking it has to be parody, then you realize it isn't, you're scared for a second, then you realize, 'oh, wait, these people represent one hundredth of one percent of the population, let's just sit back and laugh at it.'

However, in this particular case, I still must confess that I'm not entirely certain...are you serious our just messing with us?

Uh, I'm serious. And what's so important about that aspect? You mean other than the fact that it is the only way one can procreate? You know, when the Almighty commanded, "Be friutful and multiply," He was talking about reproduction...

« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 09:28:25 PM by Patriarch Noah I »

Logged

"The life of a Christian is nothing but a perpetual struggle against self; there is no flowering of the soul to the beauty of its perfection except at the price of pain." - Padre Pio

As I have already mentioned (and you might remember that), I was blasted for this "unitive" by some Catholics on the Ukrainian site "Maidan." They say that it's a total perversion of the Fathers. According to their reading of patristic sources, only a pure, spititual life of the couple in marriage was viewed as unitive. Copulation was unanimously viewed by Fathers as if not exactly "unlawful" (in marriage), but at the very least as something low, aboninable, kind of like defecation . There is never any holiness in that. I tried to argue but never succeeded, because my opponent quoted dozens over dozens of passages from St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem and other, and all I could do in return is to quote... well, Hemingway. It really does look like the idea that sex in marriage is a holy, noble thing because it strengthens the union between the members of a couple comes entirely from our secular culture and not from patristics...

Yeah, that's Fathers, and St. Paul.

And that's again, it seems, our modern culture.

I wish you were correct. Sorry for playing the devil's advocate.

It sounds rather gnostic or manichean to me. The gnostics were big on refraining from sex because they thought it was evil.

It sounds rather gnostic or manichean to me. The gnostics were big on refraining from sex because they thought it was evil.

As far as I know, Christians are also supposed to refrain from gluttony and greed. Does that mean that food or material possesions are evil? No. In the afterlife, we will not have food, posessions, or sexuality, so shouldn't it be encouraged in every Christian, not just the Monks and nuns, to practise greater self-restraint, as a fore-taste of the Divine Beyond? In my ever so humble opinion, the Catholic Church has gone soft when it comes to self-restraint. We pretty much abolished major fasting, and it seems contrary to the Gospel. When Jesus tell His followers to pick up their crosses and follow Him, it hits me in such a way that I cannot put into words. As Blessed Pope John XXIII stated, "A Christian life is a life of sacrifice." I believe it with all my heart.

« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 11:33:00 PM by Patriarch Noah I »

Logged

"The life of a Christian is nothing but a perpetual struggle against self; there is no flowering of the soul to the beauty of its perfection except at the price of pain." - Padre Pio

As far as I know, Christians are also supposed to refrain from gluttony and greed. Does that mean that food or material possesions are evil? No. In the afterlife, we will not have food, posessions, or sexuality, so shouldn't it be encouraged in every Christian, not just the Monks and nuns, to practise greater self-restraint, as a fore-taste of the Divine Beyond? In my ever so humble opinion, the Catholic Church has gone soft when it comes to self-restraint. We pretty much abolished major fasting, and it seems contrary to the Gospel. When Jesus tell His followers to pick up their crosses and follow Him, it hits me in such a way that I cannot put into words. As Blessed Pope John XXIII stated, "A Christian life is a life of sacrifice." I believe it with all my heart.

I agree 100% with you. But the problem is that in the post I was responding to the person refered to someone that said that sex is only meant to calm the passions. If used in any other context it is sinfull. It is as much as to say sex is evil. Sex is not evil, that would be gnostic. But it is good to control your passions and to abstain at times. I agree that the Catholic fasting has basically ceased to exist. It has saddened me at times to see that my church has basically rejected any acts of self-sacrifice. All while admitting that sacrifice is essential to life.

I agree 100% with you. But the problem is that in the post I was responding to the person refered to someone that said that sex is only meant to calm the passions. If used in any other context it is sinfull. It is as much as to say sex is evil. Sex is not evil, that would be gnostic. But it is good to control your passions and to abstain at times. I agree that the Catholic fasting has basically ceased to exist. It has saddened me at times to see that my church has basically rejected any acts of self-sacrifice. All while admitting that sacrifice is essential to life.

Not to be indelicate, BUUUT...

I often get the impression that those who on the issue of gluttony (and I think most of them, if not all, are celibate) have this idea that couples are joined at the waist 24/7. Just the realities of life include periods of abstinence, how else do you get the housework done?

I often am amused at these theoretical discussions (and, mostly from celibates, and I'll further, celibate men, they are theoretical) have no idea of the dynamic of a marriage. As the Russians say, don't take your old rule to your new monastery.

I remember reading monastic literature of the early centuries and was astonished to find how little sex was in it. LOTS about gluttony (food that is, and it is quite clear they are talking about food).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I often get the impression that those who on the issue of gluttony (and I think most of them, if not all, are celibate) have this idea that couples are joined at the waist 24/7. Just the realities of life include periods of abstinence, how else do you get the housework done?

I often am amused at these theoretical discussions (and, mostly from celibates, and I'll further, celibate men, they are theoretical) have no idea of the dynamic of a marriage. As the Russians say, don't take your old rule to your new monastery.

I remember reading monastic literature of the early centuries and was astonished to find how little sex was in it. LOTS about gluttony (food that is, and it is quite clear they are talking about food).

I am not sure how this is associated with what I said. I am not sure what you oppose in what I said.

I remember reading monastic literature of the early centuries and was astonished to find how little sex was in it. LOTS about gluttony (food that is, and it is quite clear they are talking about food).

After thinking about it, I can't remember sex within marriage even being mentioned in the sayings of the desert fathers. There was plenty to be said about gluttony, anger, love, forgiveness and the virtues. In the entire New Testament, I don't think there is anything about what goes on inside a marriage - just the "boring" stuff about loving neighbors and the like.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if this more modern obsession with sexuality morality as the end all of Christian morality in certain Orthodox and Catholic circles is directly picked up from American Evangelical Protestantism.

After thinking about it, I can't remember sex within marriage even being mentioned in the sayings of the desert fathers. There was plenty to be said about gluttony, anger, love, forgiveness and the virtues. In the entire New Testament, I don't think there is anything about what goes on inside a marriage - just the "boring" stuff about loving neighbors and the like.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if this more modern obsession with sexuality morality as the end all of Christian morality in certain Orthodox and Catholic circles is directly picked up from American Evangelical Protestantism.

That does seem very sound. I was watching some fundamentalist Christian documentary and the men were with there wives boasting that they had sex every day like they have no understanding of control, they said what is marriage for? I remember in a Pentacostal bible study I went to he was describing how Adam looked (eg Tall, muscular) and how sexually attracted eve must of been instead of the importance of the story!

After thinking about it, I can't remember sex within marriage even being mentioned in the sayings of the desert fathers. There was plenty to be said about gluttony, anger, love, forgiveness and the virtues. In the entire New Testament, I don't think there is anything about what goes on inside a marriage - just the "boring" stuff about loving neighbors and the like.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if this more modern obsession with sexuality morality as the end all of Christian morality in certain Orthodox and Catholic circles is directly picked up from American Evangelical Protestantism.

You have made an interesting point. There are still some cultures which do not focus so much attention on sexuality. Many of my Orthodox female aquaintances and friends who grew up in Israel and Syria never had sex ed. classes in school. The culture they were surrounded by was not saturated with the sexual messages and images that we can hardly get away from no matter where we turn. These same women told me they didn't know anything about sexual relations until they got married. Once married they had to learn quickly and most of their marriages were arranged. Amazingly, most of these ladies are still married to the same guys...in other words, not too many divorces. But I don't know how happy their marriages are either. Perhaps they have a different view of the whole marriage relationship than we westerners do.

Out of curiosity....I am wondering how many of those who have posted on this thread are single males.

You have made an interesting point. There are still some cultures which do not focus so much attention on sexuality. Many of my Orthodox female aquaintances and friends who grew up in Israel and Syria never had sex ed. classes in school. The culture they were surrounded by was not saturated with the sexual messages and images that we can hardly get away from no matter where we turn. These same women told me they didn't know anything about sexual relations until they got married. Once married they had to learn quickly and most of their marriages were arranged. Amazingly, most of these ladies are still married to the same guys...in other words, not too many divorces. But I don't know how happy their marriages are either. Perhaps they have a different view of the whole marriage relationship than we westerners do.

Out of curiosity....I am wondering how many of those who have posted on this thread are single males.

I'm divorced. How does that rate?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Out of curiosity....I am wondering how many of those who have posted on this thread are single males.

I don't count since I only posted about the epistemology of the singe male posters and not about the topic. And GiC definetely doesn't count since he only posted to make fun of the other single male posters.

Probably a topic for another thread, but of late it seems I've been having to read more Islamic theology / history than anything else and the so-called puristic / fundamentalist movements really only date to the 19th century. That's why I'm wondering if a parallel movement exists in Christianity - especially since I'm reading a book by Fr. Andrew Louth at the moment called Discerning the Mystery that hints at this. But maybe I'm just a nerd for thinking discussions about religious / philosophical / literary movements are better suited for a public discussion and pastoral advice to the confessional...

Hi, I'm new here. I'm also a Catholic, and I think I may be on my way East. However, i do have some questions on Orthodoxy's views on sex. I could describe my views on sex as "puritanical". I don't believe that sex is evil when conception is likely between a married couple, but in any other case I see it as sinful I have been told by some Catholics that I'm far too conservative. What does the East have to say?

You clearly believe that procreation is the chief aim and justification for sexual activity. Holy Orthodoxy shares this belief. However, we must properly interpret what this belief means. The importance of procreation is not due to some idea that sexual union is a mere biological process. Rather, sexual union is geared primarily for procreation because it is the crown of the union of the couple. If we say that marital relations are an aid in helping the couple on the path of theosis, this is fulfilled in openness to a child who will join and help the couple on this path. If marital relations are a way to overcome lust and selfishness, this is fulfilled in openness to a child who will be authentically loved as one who is a perpetuation of the other spouse. If marital union is a reflection of the love of the Holy Trinity, it will be the love of two that is not indifferent to the presence of a third. If marital union is a reflection of the love of Christ for the Church, it will be open to the fruitfulness that marks Christ's love for the Church. If marital union is sacramental, it will seek to be life giving like the sacraments are. Procreation truly is the crown of all sexuality, and rightly do the Holy Fathers speak of its importance. Of course, there are some Fathers who focus too much on the earthly nature of marital relations and emphasize the difficulties that married people have in having their love transfigured, but these tendencies hardly rise to the level of doctrine and can be replaced by more holistic and positive views of marriage and sexuality.

You also believe that post-menopausal sex is sinful. However, I am unaware of either the Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church ever stating this. Certainly, as we grow older, we should loosen our attachments to the things of the earth, including sex as we prepare for the heavenly kingdom where our marital union will be solely spiritual in nature. However, the Church has never commanded couples to refuse sex when it is no longer naturally possible for it to be procreative. Any condemnation you may find in the Holy Fathers would be to deliberate actions done by the couple that keep procreation from occurring (contraception), not having relations when nature simply keeps conception from occurring.

Even regarding contraception, the Orthodox Church allows couples to use other forms of family planning than the ideal form of total abstinence, when they have a true need to limit the size of their families and aren’t called to the high demands of total abstinence. This is an exception and not the norm, however.

Except for St. Paul, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom and various other equally minor figures in Church History. Just a quick clarification, carry on.

Fr. John Breck in his book The Sacred Gift of Life: Orthodox Christianity and Bioethics makes this statement about procreation. He also says that the univite nature of marital relations is honorable, but is a blessed corollary to the more fundamental purpose of procreation. I've always thought that he was right. I'll read up more about the topic though. Thanks.